Fixing struct-by-value-[567] on solaris2 with -fpic

Fixing struct-by-value-[567] on solaris2 with -fpic

[Kaveh R. Ghazi]

Hi Janis,

I'm seeing some failures on sparc-sun-solaris2.7 for
struct-by-value-[567] when running a testsuite pass with -fpic.  E.g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-04/msg00142.html

The logfile shows this for all three tests when linking:

 > [...]
 > ld: fatal: too many symbols require `small' PIC references:
 >         have 1283, maximum 1024 -- recompile some modules -K PIC.
 > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
 > compiler exited with status 1

It doesn't indicate a bug in GCC, but it creates testsuite noise. So
I'd like to silence it somehow.

I don't think having all the cases in one executable is what you were
trying to test, so I'd like to split these three tests each into two
files.  E.g. I was thinking split testcase 5 into 5a and 5b and put
half of the stuff in each one.  Ditto for cases 6 and 7 respectively.

Thoughts?

		Thanks,
		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu

Re: Fixing struct-by-value-[567] on solaris2 with -fpic

[Janis Johnson]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 09:37:10AM -0500, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> Hi Janis,
> 
> I'm seeing some failures on sparc-sun-solaris2.7 for
> struct-by-value-[567] when running a testsuite pass with -fpic.  E.g.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-04/msg00142.html
> 
> The logfile shows this for all three tests when linking:
> 
>  > [...]
>  > ld: fatal: too many symbols require `small' PIC references:
>  >         have 1283, maximum 1024 -- recompile some modules -K PIC.
>  > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
>  > compiler exited with status 1
> 
> It doesn't indicate a bug in GCC, but it creates testsuite noise. So
> I'd like to silence it somehow.
> 
> I don't think having all the cases in one executable is what you were
> trying to test, so I'd like to split these three tests each into two
> files.  E.g. I was thinking split testcase 5 into 5a and 5b and put
> half of the stuff in each one.  Ditto for cases 6 and 7 respectively.
> 
> Thoughts?

That sounds fine to me.

Janis